Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 580 posts

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#561

Post by lazyeye »

howinteresting wrote: post #560
lazyeye wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, nonsense. You could make these kind of claims along any lines, for example, christians are the target of discrimination for their beliefs etc. You just choose the ones that align with left-wing ideology and everything else is "hate" and deserving of censorship.

Noticing a startling lack of evidence in your posts here. You're in good company with those right-wing state governments over there.

Why do (extremely) simple concepts like this need a 3rd party to support them?

The kind of "evidence" that is normally presented is typically provided by 3rd-rate activist researchers, attracted to dogma, and who simply come to whatever conclusion perpetuates that dogma.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#562

Post by howinteresting »

lazyeye wrote: post #561
howinteresting wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noticing a startling lack of evidence in your posts here. You're in good company with those right-wing state governments over there.

Why do (extremely) simple concepts like this need a 3rd party to support them? The kind of "evidence" that is normally presented is typically provided by 3rd-rate activist researchers, attracted to dogma, and who simply come to whatever conclusion perpetuates that dogma.

So you still don't have any evidence for your claims then?

I've made claims here and presented clear evidence. You called it "nonsense" with no substantiation other than vague gestures toward Christians (which Christians?) being targeted (how?) for their beliefs (which beliefs?)

I understand that you're trying to drag me down to the meta level so you can beat me with experience, but I'm not willing to take the bait here, sorry.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#563

Post by lazyeye »

howinteresting wrote: post #562
lazyeye wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do (extremely) simple concepts like this need a 3rd party to support them? The kind of "evidence" that is normally presented is typically provided by 3rd-rate activist researchers, attracted to dogma, and who simply come to whatever conclusion perpetuates that dogma.

So you still don't have any evidence for your claims then? I've made claims here and presented clear evidence. You called it "nonsense" with no substantiation other than vague gestures toward Christians (which Christians?) being targeted (how?) for their beliefs (which beliefs?) I understand that you're trying to drag me down to the meta level so you can beat me with experience, but I'm not willing to take the bait h…

Neither of us has provided meaningful evidence. We are already on the same level. I havent dragged you anywhere.

You've just pulled up a bit of dross from a highly partisan organisation and are claiming that this is proof of something.

It would be like me quoting fox news as proof.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#564

Post by ModernMech »

TheHappyOddish wrote: post #555
ModernMech wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Left wing extremists are currently saying that words are violence [1]. It’s the Republican, Trump-appointed, FBI director’s assessment that extremist right-wing political violence (read homegrown right-wing terrorism) is far and away a bigger problem than left-wing violence. Jan 6 I hoped would have demonstrated that clearly once and for all. After that day, it has become impossible to “both sides” political violen…

It's getting very boring hearing Americans going on about "Jan 6th". Some protesters entered a building. It's not that big a deal, no "political violence" happened. It's been 20 years and Americans have finally recently stopped harping on about "9/11", after decades of them murdering orders of magnitudes more innocents. It's incredible to see them committing some of worst attrocities in the world and still loudly yel…

Leader of Oath Keepers was found guilty of seditious conspiracy, so you’re wrong about that.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#565

Post by howinteresting »

lazyeye wrote: post #563
howinteresting wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you still don't have any evidence for your claims then? I've made claims here and presented clear evidence. You called it "nonsense" with no substantiation other than vague gestures toward Christians (which Christians?) being targeted (how?) for their beliefs (which beliefs?) I understand that you're trying to drag me down to the meta level so you can beat me with experience, but I'm not willing to take the bait h…

Neither of us has provided meaningful evidence. We are already on the same level. I havent dragged you anywhere. You've just pulled up a bit of dross from a highly partisan organisation and are claiming that this is proof of something. It would be like me quoting fox news as proof.

A judgment made by a federal court in the United States is "a bit of dross", apparently.

I checked your post history. It's pretty clear you are deep in an alternate reality. I hope you can find your way out of it some day.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#566

Post by lazyeye »

howinteresting wrote: post #565
lazyeye wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of us has provided meaningful evidence. We are already on the same level. I havent dragged you anywhere. You've just pulled up a bit of dross from a highly partisan organisation and are claiming that this is proof of something. It would be like me quoting fox news as proof.

A judgment made by a federal court in the United States is "a bit of dross", apparently. I checked your post history. It's pretty clear you are deep in an alternate reality. I hope you can find your way out of it some day.

Lol

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#567

Post by rhaksw »

anigbrowl wrote: post #498
rhaksw wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ther's no obligation to have dialog with others who are actively threatening to kill you. I never said there was. Even free speech law has limits and may punish such speech. What I advocate is for authors of secretly removed content to be able to discover the removal, because even if the comment is vitriolic, the offending author may perceive the lack of a response as tacit approval of their words. > But there is a…

I'm aware of what you're advocating because you repeat it so often. I have no objection to your points about discoverability (indeed I mentioned else where that sufficiently obnoxious tweets could be highlighted as ban-worthy, rather than simply being removed - although this wouldn't mitigate the harm done by posting slurs etc. It's a little odd to me that you contemplate hypotheticals like 'perceiving the lack of re…

> It's hard for me to take you seriously when the issue you complain about at such length involves so little hardship.

It seems you feel that secretive online censorship is not a big deal. I don't see the point in trying to convince you. Plenty of other people, such as those I quoted here [1], do care.

If you'd like me to respond further, please narrow it down to a question or two.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33916519

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#569

Post by KurvaKing »

sanjayio wrote: post #163
seo-speedwagon wrote: post #162

None of this is new information. There is an entire help page about this https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-reach... The only new info I learned was Libs of TicTok apparently got special protections not afforded to regular users

It’s marketing material, content moderation and free speech is a super hot topic.

No post body was provided.

Re: The Twitter Files Part 2: Twitter's Secret Blacklists

#570

Post by cactusplant7374 »

oska wrote: post #377

Here's a hint to a further revelation for those who continue to pretend that the Twitter Files are a 'nothingburger'. Ian Miles Cheong : > So here’s a question for @elonmusk and @bariweiss: were any political candidates — either in the US or elsewhere — subject to shadowbanning while they were running for office or seeking re-election? Elon : > Yes https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601123235755487233

Political candidates can spread lies and hate. I don’t see why they shouldn’t be subjected to the same rules as everyone else.

Musk feels the same way about Alex Jones — who was part of a civil and not criminal action. What he did was immoral but not illegal. I’m glad we have a system to address the harm he did but disappointed in Musk that he can’t apply the same standard beyond Jones.

Post reply on HN